SUBJECT: Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

The White House - Office of the Press Secretary ^ | June 17, 2009 | Barack Obama

[In Maryland]

Section 1. Extension of Identified Benefits. The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, extend the benefits they have respectively identified to qualified same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees where doing so can be achieved and is consistent with Federal law.

[In Maryland]

Has anyone else noticed that the President's Memorandum of June 17 extending benefits to "domsetic partners" specifically applies to "same-sex" partners. This seems to me a blantant violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution - millions of opposite-sexed people are "domestic partners" without benefit of marriage - why are they being discriminated against? With this order, heterosexuals are denied the special rights being given to homosexuals. In order to receive the same benefit as homosexuals, heterosexual couples must legally marry (and expose themselves to the "marriage penalty" in the tax code). How is that "equal protection"?

[Vendome]

Totally agree. I am a lover of women. They smell good, they are soft and have all the right parts. Hopefully, they are intelligent, engaging and adventurous, as well.

Why am I being discriminated against? Is it because I don't fit someones ideal of a committed relationship? Said relationship being defined as one who professes love or commitment to another person of the same sex?

How is that fair? If the goal is to extend benefits to “committed” relationships, shouldn't it apply to ALL committed relationships?

How do you define committed anyway? Is there a ceremony? Are there contracts stating responsibilities? Do the contracts have time limits or Terms and Conditions that spell what would be the basis for dissolution and mutually agreed sanctions for violation or breach of the contract?